Evolution of the Fighter

[justanobody]

Never hurts to preach to the choir.

I just didn't want to be the first one to point out what you said about which is made to look the better version of the fighter. I think I made enough points about the article itself earlier, I had to leave something for someone else to gripe about.

 

[AllisterH]

The 3e fighter is without a doubt, the most COMPLEX class of the core classes in the PHB. Hell, there's a legitimate argument that the fighter was the most complex full 20 level class over the lifespan of 3e.

Where does this mistaken notion that the 3E fighter was a newbie class? The 1e/2e fighters? yeah, THOSE you could simply give to a new player and say "run wild and be free"

But a 3E fighter? Are you kidding me?

 

[Fifth Element]

if UA is not 1.5, then 3.5 is not 3.5.

Complete series of books (brown/blue/green) did not change the rules. UA changed the rules. Player's Options series changes the rules. 3.5 changed the rules.

I'm having trouble remembering how UA changed the rules, rather than added new rules (new classes, etc). Help me out here. 3.5 redesigned the ranger, for instance. 1E made the paladin a subclass of the cavalier rather than the fighter, but did not change any of its abilities. What examples am I missing?

1.5 (UA) was just gravy. The only ".5" done right so far IMNSHO.

I don't recall UA being much more than a bunch of new races, classes and spells. Now if you want to get into OA, DSG and WSG, which introduced non-weapon proficiencies, you might start to get into 1.5 territory.

 

[Fifth Element]

The 3e fighter is without a doubt, the most COMPLEX class of the core classes in the PHB. Hell, there's a legitimate argument that the fighter was the most complex full 20 level class over the lifespan of 3e.

I think any core spellcaster is more complex than the fighter. Assuming by complex you mean something like "the number of options available at any one time". That fighter may have a bunch of feats, but for the most part the feats either apply or they don't. The wizard can have dozens of spells to choose from at any one time. And a cleric preparing spells at the beginning of a day, not limited like the wizard in the number of spells available? That's complex.

 

[Phaezen]

I think any core spellcaster is more complex than the fighter. Assuming by complex you mean something like "the number of options available at any one time". That fighter may have a bunch of feats, but for the most part the feats either apply or they don't. The wizard can have dozens of spells to choose from at any one time. And a cleric preparing spells at the beginning of a day, not limited like the wizard in the number of spells available? That's complex.

As I usual play a cleric or druid, yea spell selection can get complex. But the combat attack and damage roll matrix of the ranger/barbarian in our group is insane as it needs to take into account: rage, power attack (varying amounts), 2 handed weapon, 2 weapon, sword and board, common buffs. It hurts just to look at.

Phaezen

 

[Obryn]

I'm having trouble remembering how UA changed the rules, rather than added new rules (new classes, etc). Help me out here. 3.5 redesigned the ranger, for instance. 1E made the paladin a subclass of the cavalier rather than the fighter, but did not change any of its abilities. What examples am I missing?


I don't recall UA being much more than a bunch of new races, classes and spells. Now if you want to get into OA, DSG and WSG, which introduced non-weapon proficiencies, you might start to get into 1.5 territory.

About the only new-ish rules that UA has, looking through it now, are...

(1) Cantrips
(2) Alternate unarmed combat systems, thank god
(3) Weapon specialization
(4) Comeliness
(5) Alternate methods for generating (high) stats.

Other than that, it was just more. By and large it was, more and broken. Elemental-summoning gnomes, drow, subraces which get to high levels with extra ability boosts, classes that improve their stats over time, and a first-level spell which has a save-or-die effect at high levels (and an automatic paralysis effect on a successful save).

You could make a case for the Survival Guides adding a half-edition with non-weapon proficiencies, but I would still call that an add-on more than I would a big revision.

-O

 

[T. Foster]

There were a few other rules-changes as well, such as changing the allowed class/race and multi-class combos (suddenly elves can be rangers and druids, half-elves can be paladins, and everyone can be clerics; plus new multiclasses such as ranger/magic-users, fighter/druids, etc.), what weapons various classes can use (suddenly thieves can use short bows and magic-users can use slings), the limit on rangers' initial weapon proficiency choices, what armor thieves can wear (including skill bonuses if they wear no armor), the rules that 1st level characters will never have less than average hit points, how illusionists gain their starting spells, the social class table that limits the classes available to the character (e.g. you can't be a cleric unless you're at least MMC), and of course the complete retcon of the paladin into a cavalier subclass.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I'm amazed at the flexibility of the 3.X fighter. One of my favorite characters was a fighter who was built upon Dex, Wis, and Int instead of Str and Con. He was a blast to play and a sound build in regards to power level (he did mix in levels of Monk though )

It is one of my growing complaints about 4E - build straight jackets. If you are playing a fighter, making Int or Dex your highest stat is just foolish. The game (as it is now) just doesn't support a non-Str fighter.


Look at just the base 3E book

• Str Fighter had the Power Attack Feat line
• Int Fighter had the Combat Expertise line
• Dex Fighter had the Dodge Feat line
• Two Weapon Fighting feat line
• Ranged Fighter feat line
• Toughness Fighter feats (Toughness, Die Hard, etc)
• Weapon Master Feat Line

I miss this flexibility

The 4e Fighter has a few builds.

However, on the whole, the "fighter" of old is now the entire martial power source. They are all fighters, in their own way.

Power Attack line fighter -> Fighter
Dodge Feat line -> Rogue (Ranger as well with hit-run and shifting)
Two Weapon/Ranged -> Ranger, although there is a two weapon fighter into Martial Power
Toughness -> Battlerager from Martial Power
Combat Expertise -> The powers like tripping are given to numerous group. The warlord allows for a "smart" fighter build that benefits from the int. This is really the only one that doesn't have a direct analogue
Weapon Master -> Normal fighter build, this has included paragon paths, in addtion to powers and feats, tied to specific weapon types.

 

[Remathilis]

The 4e Fighter has a few builds.

However, on the whole, the "fighter" of old is now the entire martial power source. They are all fighters, in their own way.

Power Attack line fighter -> Fighter
Dodge Feat line -> Rogue (Ranger as well with hit-run and shifting)
Two Weapon/Ranged -> Ranger, although there is a two weapon fighter into Martial Power
Toughness -> Battlerager from Martial Power
Combat Expertise -> The powers like tripping are given to numerous group. The warlord allows for a "smart" fighter build that benefits from the int. This is really the only one that doesn't have a direct analogue
Weapon Master -> Normal fighter build, this has included paragon paths, in addition to powers and feats, tied to specific weapon types.

The major difference is that before, a fighter could do 2 or more of these simultaneously. It was complete possible to build a fighter who had the dodge feat tree, a few archery feats, and the weapon mastery line all in one so that he could change tactics on the fly. In 4e, that's harder to do; the fighter no longer has access to dodge/spring attack powers, has no access to ranged attacks beyond basic attacks, etc.

For people who like to focus on something (defense, power-attack, etc) 4e's tight roles are great. If you liked to spread out a little, you're going to multi-class a whole lot to get something resembling.

Not necessarily bad, but very different.

 

[jensun]

I don't recall UA being much more than a bunch of new races, classes and spells. Now if you want to get into OA, DSG and WSG, which introduced non-weapon proficiencies, you might start to get into 1.5 territory.

My main recollection of UA was it being utterly panned in every review I ever read of it.

"Unearthed from the trash heap" is I think the nicest thing I saw written about it.